# Short & Fat vs. Long & Thin



## Jeff (Jan 2, 2005)

What do you guys think of the differences between short/fat and long/thin cigars? Do you think those specs make for a substantialy different smoke? I've tried all kinds of lengths and widths and for the most part have concluded that I prefer a cigar around 5.25x48. Give or take a couple of ring gauges or fractions of an inch.

I think the flavor developes quicker in a shorter but fatter cigar as opposed to a long thin one like a lonsdale. Its better if you don't have a long time to work the stogie. What are your preferences and thoughts?


----------



## D. Generate (Jul 1, 2004)

My preference has generally always been to the Robusto size cigars. 5X50 has been my bench standard for a long time. Now I have to say because of the cold weather and shorter smoking windows, I've been experimenting with smaller cigars. Some of them are quite good, while some lack the oomph that I get from my fat boys. I got two boxes of the Plasencia TKO for Christmas from my sister and I've found that to be a very nice and tasty little smoke. I think they're like little firecrackers and don't require a lot in the way of a time commitment.


----------



## cookieboy364 (Jan 25, 2005)

Jeff said:


> What do you guys think of the differences between short/fat and long/thin cigars? Do you think those specs make for a substantialy different smoke? I've tried all kinds of lengths and widths and for the most part have concluded that I prefer a cigar around 5.25x48. Give or take a couple of ring gauges or fractions of an inch.
> 
> I think the flavor developes quicker in a shorter but fatter cigar as opposed to a long thin one like a lonsdale. Its better if you don't have a long time to work the stogie. What are your preferences and thoughts?


I would have to agree. For me this size is best, there tend to be fewer problems with draw.


----------



## Nely (Nov 11, 2004)

When I first started smoking I used to go for the longer churchill types cigars. As i learned more about cigars and had less time to smoke, I have switched to shorter smokes because I feel they concentrate more the flavor and body of the cigar, as well as the obvious time savings. However that does not mean that I don't like the once in a while AF doble chateu or Cañones. It's just hard to find the time. I do not like the cigar to be extremely fat, cause it's kind of uncomfortable in my mouth, and the draw is too loose to find any complexity in the flavor. I think that my favorite size is a 5x50 robusto. I think is the perfect compromise.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

I prefer cigars with at least a 42 ring, I'm not much on the slim cigars. Minutos, Robustos, Marevas and Coronas Gordas are my favorite.


----------



## smokemifyagotem (Mar 12, 2003)

Coronas Gordas are my fav


----------



## txmatt (May 22, 2004)

Robusto all the way in the Parejos; sometimes going down to PCs and TPCs, or up to Corona Gorda or Toro.

I also really dig Figurados, especially Zepplin shaped perfectos and small Belicosos.

I can't stand smoking long thin cigars; if a cigar is smaller than 45 ring it had better be shorter than 5" or I won't buy it.

-Matt-


----------



## zemekone (Aug 1, 2004)

Robustos and petite coronas...


----------



## Sickboy (Jan 8, 2005)

I like robustos and belicosos. I haven't gotten to the point in my smoking career where I can handle the really lengthy smoke sessions. With robustos, it seems like the perfect length of smoke for the time I want to commit to smoking.


----------



## kamikaiguy (Feb 18, 2004)

As I have said in the part I like torpedo shapes.... However I like a 50 ring and 5 to 6.5 inches. I cna go bigger or smaller. But my go to is either a Torpedo or a robusto.


----------



## Darb85 (Jan 30, 2005)

petite coronas, and full coronas mild to medium are my fav so far. havent had a Full flavored one though so we will see how much that changes


----------



## glovepuppy (Aug 4, 2004)

For time issues, I usually prefer robustos. But I do keep some monsters on hand for those days when I'm out fishing on the river.

I think the big difference between the bigger ringed and smaller ringed cigars is the effect the wrapper and binder have on the flavor. In the bigger ringed cigars, the shear volume of filler dominates the flavor profile of the cigar. In the smaller ringed cigars, the flavor of the wrapper and binder is more easily detected.

If you would like a good example of this, smoke a CAO Brazillia Gol and then follow that with a Piranha. You will find that you get more spiciness from the wrapper with the Piranha.

pjg


----------



## c2000 (Oct 16, 2003)

kamikaiguy said:


> As I have said in the part I like torpedo shapes.... However I like a 50 ring and 5 to 6.5 inches. I cna go bigger or smaller. But my go to is either a Torpedo or a robusto.


 Ditto....

Jerry in Minnesota.


----------



## Ms. Floydp (Jan 7, 2005)

I just had to laugh when I saw this thread ... of course I had to check it out. :r 

I'm not experienced enough at cigar smoking to really have an opinion either way. I do enjoy sharing most of Frank's with him (some of them are too strong for me) but for myself, I prefer the petites I'd guess it would be. 

Someday I'll have a better opinion. Mr. Hat sent me a ERDM that's a smaller ring guage than I've had before but it's toooooo dad burned cold to have it yet. I can't wait for it to start warming up so I can try it.


----------



## DsrtDog (Jan 25, 2005)

Torpedos and Toros for me. If I don't have the time...I make the time 

I do like a robusto as well.

DsrtDog


----------



## eef (Jan 17, 2005)

I smoked a big ol' HDM excalibur 1066 (i think that's what it was), and hated it... I couldn't get a good draw out of it cause it was so freakin long, it tasted bad, the wrapper eventually fell completely off, and it burned all sorts of uneven... I ended up tossing it at about half way. 

I think I like the robusto to torpedo size... but I'm not seasoned enough to really know for sure what I like yet.
-eef


----------



## dagrinch (Oct 26, 2003)

Double Coronas or churchills for me. I like long and thick so they smoke cool and I can take as long as want when my girlfriend happens to be annoying me, or if some of her girlfriends come over to watch American Idol, or Newlyweds. I never get bothered when I smoke.

Grinch OUT!!!


----------



## c2000 (Oct 16, 2003)

eef said:


> I smoked a big ol' HDM excalibur 1066 (i think that's what it was), and hated it... I couldn't get a good draw out of it cause it was so freakin long, it tasted bad, the wrapper eventually fell completely off, and it burned all sorts of uneven... I ended up tossing it at about half way.
> 
> I-eef


\

Don't give up on the Excaliber yet..Try some of the smaller sizes..I tried a box of the big 7 inchers and was totally disappointed.,The 6 1/4 by 48 was a very good smoke..

Jerry in Minnesota.


----------



## Uniputt (Nov 23, 2004)

I usually smoke robustos/toro/torpedos. The sizes around 6 inces are my favorite. I like the bigger ring gauges, too. 

However, I always have a few churchills/double coronas around. Many times I'll start with one of those during an evening of herfin' and drinkin. Then switch to something smaller later. I also like the longer/biggers sizes for the golf course.

What glovepuppy said is right-on. It certainly does change the flavor profile. In a previous post in the box pass thread, I used the example of the Brazillia Piranha just as he mentioned it. It was shocked at how much stronger/spicier it tasted compared to the larger sizes, which I had many times before. My wife loved the Brazillia in the Gol! size, and actually commented on how chocolately it tasted. There is no way she would like the smallest one.

(Higher percentage of leaf contained was the Brazillian wrapper/binder + smaller ring gauge/hotter burn = strong/full/spicy!!)


----------



## Rob T (Feb 6, 2005)

Robusto's and Torpedos for me!

:w


----------



## Da Klugs (Jan 8, 2005)

glovepuppy said:


> For time issues, I usually prefer robustos. But I do keep some monsters on hand for those days when I'm out fishing on the river.
> 
> I think the big difference between the bigger ringed and smaller ringed cigars is the effect the wrapper and binder have on the flavor. In the bigger ringed cigars, the shear volume of filler dominates the flavor profile of the cigar. In the smaller ringed cigars, the flavor of the wrapper and binder is more easily detected.
> 
> ...


Knowledge transfer nice. And thanks makes lots of sense. Do I want to taste the binder and wrapper is my follow-up question Obiewan.


----------



## InfrnalSky (Apr 24, 2004)

I tend to go for some of the thicker cigars. I smoke pretty quickly, and the thinner cigars over-heat for me.

Eddie


----------



## G-Man (Feb 20, 2004)

I prefer a Robusto 90% of the time. I like a Churchill or a Corona Gorda when I have the time. I usually keep some corona's in the box for when that mood strikes.

I also keep some "short" smokes, like the Padron Delicias around when I need a smoke, but don't have the time.....


----------



## floydp (Jun 6, 2004)

Robusto and toro's here... churchill some too..


----------



## RcktS4 (Jan 13, 2005)

Personally I think it just depends on the cigar. Like a few other people here, I like the Piranha best out of the Brazilia line, but for other lines like a Torano 1916 Cameroon the thinner RG seems to really dilute the flavor (milder wrapper). 

I would rather smoke a PC in the winter (duh), but I generally have the best experience from figurados... I can't remember the last torpedo I had that didn't draw well. Lately I am really loving perfectos, but to be honest I think that is mostly due to the novelty of the changing RG and flavor profile throughout the smoke.

Robusto is always the starting point for me. I figure if you can't make a robusto (or toro) taste right, the rest of the line is probably not much better. 

My only real dislike is super fat RG cigars. There's something un-comfortable about extending my jaw to get a 60 guage kielbasa stogie in. It ruins it for me.


----------

